Dan74 wrote:Kim, where in what you said is the evidence that governments (of either the three countries you mention) arrests its citizens and locks them up without trial? If there is, I'd really like to see it.

Hi, Dan,I didn't say they did and nor do I have evidence on hand that they do. I was only addressing the information-gathering capacity now available to governments. It wouldn't surprise me a lot if it does happen occasionally, however, and it wouldn't surprise me at all that people are arrested on reasonable but trivial charges (e.g. over-staying a visa) when suspected of more serious activities (e.g. planning a terrorist attack). If I had a bit more time I would look at the reports of Amnesty or Human Rights Watch to back up my general impression of what's going on.

If you want an in-depth look at the underlying moral and legal issues, Grayling's Liberty in the Age of Terror is good.

Well the message you addressed was in response to Nemo's message above - did you see it? Sorry I am tired and cranky after a week of replying to students' question that could've been avoided had they read what I wrote... Deja vu...

Dan74 wrote:Kim, where in what you said is the evidence that governments (of either the three countries you mention) arrests its citizens and locks them up without trial? If there is, I'd really like to see it.

Dan74 - the US interned Japanese-Americans during WW II - then after 9/11 the US did in fact put some citizens and/or residents into detention without and evidence at all. In fact in the US people can be detained for extraordinary periods of time without trial. Technically people are not imprisoned but they are physically in a prison.

The US also made mistakes during rendition. In one case the US renditioned a German citizen of Middle Eastern birth and extraction and imprisoned him in a secret prison in Eastern Europe for about a year before releasing him.

Dan74 wrote:Kim, where in what you said is the evidence that governments (of either the three countries you mention) arrests its citizens and locks them up without trial? If there is, I'd really like to see it.

Dan74 - the US interned Japanese-Americans during WW II - then after 9/11 the US did in fact put some citizens and/or residents into detention without and evidence at all. In fact in the US people can be detained for extraordinary periods of time without trial. Technically people are not imprisoned but they are physically in a prison.

The US also made mistakes during rendition. In one case the US renditioned a German citizen of Middle Eastern birth and extraction and imprisoned him in a secret prison in Eastern Europe for about a year before releasing him.

Well the message you addressed was in response to Nemo's message above - did you see it? Sorry I am tired and cranky after a week of replying to students' question that could've been avoided had they read what I wrote... Deja vu...

Hi, Dan,To me it looked like you were doubting (from "Do you gents think the Government is going to be spying on you and there are people somewhere reading your private communications?" onwards) all aspects of what Nemo and Suzanne were saying. I wanted to show that their concerns were not as far-fetched as you seemed to think, that's all. Friday evening may not be the best time for internet forums - for anyone. I could have been clearer ... sorry.

Dan74 wrote:Kim, where in what you said is the evidence that governments (of either the three countries you mention) arrests its citizens and locks them up without trial? If there is, I'd really like to see it.

After 9/11 the Feds rounded up and held many innocent Muslims for months under the cover of the "material witness" law.

Kim and Jinzang, I am not doubting that Government will push their powers as far as possible and sometimes further, mostly because they, like all of us, think they know best, plus they have the means to act on that knowledge. What I did doubt was

In my town a few dozen were rounded up on security certificates. Basically some spook decided these people were bad so they go to jail indefinitely. No trial, no family visits, no legal interventions, often not even an admission they are in detention.

I have a hard time believing this happens in Canada. Because if it did, human rights groups would be making damn sure the whole world knew about it and Canadian government would fall in a matter of days. Our system is far from perfect and eternal vigilance is needed of course, but I'd rather have hard facts before barricading myself with a sawn-off rifle and a can of gasoline (metaphorically speaking).

China and Russia snoop on their citizens and other countries just like the US. What I don't like is the US hypocritical attitude about the hacking and human rights. After the Snowden's leak and the debacles in Libya and Syria, hopefully they will stop cry wolf about other countries' human rights record, and that other countries are hacking them (well, I hope at least for awhile)

Dan74 wrote:Kim and Jinzang, I am not doubting that Government will push their powers as far as possible and sometimes further, mostly because they, like all of us, think they know best, plus they have the means to act on that knowledge. What I did doubt was

In my town a few dozen were rounded up on security certificates. Basically some spook decided these people were bad so they go to jail indefinitely. No trial, no family visits, no legal interventions, often not even an admission they are in detention.

I have a hard time believing this happens in Canada. Because if it did, human rights groups would be making damn sure the whole world knew about it and Canadian government would fall in a matter of days. Our system is far from perfect and eternal vigilance is needed of course, but I'd rather have hard facts before barricading myself with a sawn-off rifle and a can of gasoline (metaphorically speaking).

Sorry, but no. No one gave a shit. They were called "preventative arrests" made legal under the Canadian Anti-terrorism Act. They expired and then Harper passed them again in perpetuity this time with Bill S-7. I saw the old Egyptian man who wrote books condemning Mubarak and colonial meddling in Egyptian affairs. He was frail, already in his 70's and no threat to anyone. He was thrown into a special section of Innes Road jail in Ottawa.I know at least 5 people were detained there, but I expect more than a dozen by the size and how crowded it was. My take was we locked him up as a favour to our ally Mubarak.

Many others we let the Americans have and they disappeared. I have no idea what ever happened to them and am not sure I want to know. I quit the Army a few years ago and tried to forget all this shit. Thanks for not keeping an eye on the government liberal douchebags. Now I have to carry around that I was in an Army that locked up old men for writing books ridiculing tyrants.

It is more about America, but Canada is a wing of the US political machine, so it all applies to Canada as well.

But what about Spengler’s corollary prediction that the West’s democratic forms will erode as it fulfills its civilizational push to empire? Certainly, there is no popular sentiment for such a thing. Yet here too we see signs that the country is headed in that direction, reflected in a growing tendency toward arrogation of power on the part of the nation’s executive, at the expense of Congress, and Congress’s supine acquiescence in this trend. It’s seen also in the Federal Reserve’s remarkable power grab of recent years whereby it has circumvented the congressional appropriations process in making funds available to banks to execute its “quantitative easing” policies of loose money. Again, Congress has quietly accepted this incursion into its constitutional domain without so much as a whimper.

As Plato and Polybius described long ago, democracy naturally leads to the most brutal of dictatorships.

The expansion of competing political groups leads to political deadlock, which means major problems remain unresolved while the commonly accept standard of living declines. The masses are quick to allow for tyranny if it is in their interests regardless of the ethical implications.

Indrajala wrote:As Plato and Polybius described long ago, democracy naturally leads to the most brutal of dictatorships.

Winston Churchill quipped “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”"

The expansion of competing political groups leads to political deadlock, which means major problems remain unresolved while the commonly accept standard of living declines. The masses are quick to allow for tyranny if it is in their interests regardless of the ethical implications.

Polybius thought the Roman Republic model in his time was a wise arrangement as it took the best of several forms of government. It provided for both the elites and commoners so that neither could entirely monopolize power while at the same time preventing over dispersal of political power.

The best government however depends on cultural factors. In some cases a constitutional monarchy makes sense.

A lot of western countries not so long ago were basically constitutional oligarchies. Only males of certain status had access to the political sphere. Giving too many people access to political power is unwise, though such ideas are contrary to contemporary democratic ideals.

I personally would rather have a ruling class that has power by virtue of inherited title rather than it being a mobile merchant class which can take its money and leave at any time. The latter convert their money into political power and ultimately serve business interests. It is in the interests of a landed aristocracy to look to the well-being of their populace because their power base depends on them, not business activities. I'd rather have real kings than kingmakers, so to speak.

In any case, our present models in the west are rapidly unwinding. We have a lot less freedom now than our grandparents did, which should be alarming, but for many it isn't.

As time goes on democracy will fail, tyranny will solve the problems of the day (probably at the cost of many lives) and then people will probably look back with disgust at the models of society and government we so often cherish today. Such is how political cycles operate in western civilization.

Indrajala wrote:Giving too many people access to political power is unwise, though such ideas are contrary to contemporary democratic ideals.

So you have basically become a monarchist, for all intents and purposes. Good luck with that.

I personally would rather have a ruling class that has power by virtue of inherited title

As if this has ever actually worked at any time in history in any civilization. Āryadeva points out the foolishness of this kind of thinking in 400 Verses. He clearly advises kings that kings (and leaders in general) rule because of the power the people invest in them and not otherwise.

It is in the interests of a landed aristocracy to look to the well-being of their populace because their power base depends on them, not business activities. I'd rather have real kings than kingmakers, so to speak.

Pure romanticism. The landed aristocracy in western England, for example, left their people starving and in rags. In France it was worse. Russia, even worse. There have been very few "enlightened" kings in history capable of ruling with a fair hand and with the benefit of their people as their chief priority. Mostly they are the descendants of plundering mercenaries and invaders, for example, like the Normans. Further, history shows that in general, generations of landed aristocracy become increasingly more corrupt and exploitative. It is just a form of primitive capital accumulation, that's all.

In any case, our present models in the west are rapidly unwinding. We have a lot less freedom now than our grandparents did, which should be alarming, but for many it isn't.

Yes, but that is a social consequence of technology and economics. We also have a great deal less crime in the West than we did fifty years ago. The reason US prisons are so full is because of our ridiculous and ineffective drug laws.

As time goes on democracy will fail, tyranny will solve the problems of the day (probably at the cost of many lives) and then people will probably look back with disgust at the models of society and government we so often cherish today. Such is how political cycles operate in western civilization.

Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I don't believe that in our lifetime there will be much change in the world political balance status quo unless it is driven by a major energy crisis, or because of escalating climate instability. Even so, here in the US, I don't foresee much true political instability. Our system is actually fairly distributed and decentralized.

Malcolm wrote:As if this has ever actually worked at any time in history in any civilization. Āryadeva points out the foolishness of this kind of thinking in 400 Verses. He clearly advises kings that kings (and leaders in general) rule because of the power the people invest in them and not otherwise.

And you think our present systems in the west are reflective of people investing their leadership with power? No, positions of major power are acquired by the merchant class through money. If they don't directly hold the seat of office, they are still the power behind the scenes calling the shots.

Pure romanticism. The landed aristocracy in western England, for example, left their people starving and in rags. In France it was worse. Russia, even worse.

Polybius' model actually accounts for this. A wise ruler might be initially elected to lead, but later his descendants become decadent and inept, leading to aristocracy. Those descendents likewise become incapable of proper leadership, leading to democracy and thereafter political deadlock and mob rule, whereupon a single ruler again is placed on the seat of power to restore order.

Look what happened to France: decadent aristocracy leading to democratic revolution. Look what happened to Russia: communist revolution.

This is why Polybius praised the Roman model: it incorporated elements of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy.

Mostly they are the descendants of plundering mercenaries and invaders, for example, like the Normans. Further, history shows that in general, generations of landed aristocracy become increasingly more corrupt and exploitative. It is just a form of primitive capital accumulation, that's all.

And in our present model the descendents of exploitative capitalists are increasingly corrupt and running "democratic" governments from Wall Street and other financial centers.

Yes, but that is a social consequence of technology and economics. We also have a great deal less crime in the West than we did fifty years ago.

That's probably more to do with the wealth accumulation. Middle class people with an education are less likely to resort to petty crime. They got too much to lose (like property, a career and family).

Indrajala wrote:And you think our present systems in the west are reflective of people investing their leadership with power? No, positions of major power are acquired by the merchant class through money. If they don't directly hold the seat of office, they are still the power behind the scenes calling the shots.

Depends on which leaders you mean? When it comes to major posts like "president" and the senate, yes, this is clearly a money game. In the US, the House is not so much a money game -- this is why we have such a diversity of wingnuts in the house. People actually do manage to vote people in who they feel represent their interests.

Even when the business class is "calling the shots", they will do so only so long as a) they are tolerated or b) are willing to resort to repressive measures. History shows that b) never works out in the end of for the oppressors. Oppression is a short term game with high costs for the players. So even the so-called "shot callers" are only able to call shots based in whether they are allowed to.

This is why Polybius praised the Roman model: it incorporated elements of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy.

As does the US system -- maybe this is why it is such a strong form of government. We have the Executive branch i.e. monarchy with a smattering of oligarchy; the judicial branch, clearly an oligarchy; and the house and the senate, democratic, with the latter tending towards oligarchic stasis. Sounds like your ideal place.

And in our present model the descendents of exploitative capitalists are increasingly corrupt and running "democratic" governments from Wall Street and other financial centers.

They are not increasingly corrupt, they are just as corrupt as they ever where and are ever going to get. They are just corrupt.

That's probably more to do with the wealth accumulation. Middle class people with an education are less likely to resort to petty crime. They got too much to lose (like property, a career and family).

It has a lot do with the fact that it is a lot harder to get away with crime than it used to be in the US.

I was an eye witness to these events. These are things I saw. I did know his name at the time. It is something I try not to think about but it haunts me. The official story was he was a terrorist. At that time wanting to overthrow Mubarak's corrupt regime made you one. I was in the army. If I gave you all the details there could be serious repercussions.

The problem with these laws is you can be labelled a secret terrorist. The reasons are secret, the evidence is secret and sometimes even that you are in jail is secret. The media were the tamest of lapdogs imaginable. Public Affairs might as well have put them on the payroll. Say the word terrorist and case closed move along. No one cared but me and maybe a few others but what could we say. The military jail in Edmonton is so bad by law they have to send you to a Federal lockup for a vacation once a year. It's not paranoia if they really can do bad things to you.

You can get the gas anywhere but if you are looking for that shotgun I recommend the Keltec KSG. Challenger rifled slugs are legal and can penetrate body armour up to 3/16th plate.

bamboo wrote:As a Canadian i am really surprised to hear this. If something like this happens, wouldn't the relatives of the detained go to the press? It would be hard to keep the lid on it.

They did. The press then went straight to Public Relations who said trust us he's a terrorist but we can't tell you why. Case closed buddy. No need for a story and lunch is on me. We can get you that embed in the sandbox(Afghanistan) next month if you are still up for it. Egypt was not a cause celebre then and Mubarak was our guy. Canada protected it's interests in the region. The press in Ottawa is an extension of the government. They can only work here if they have access which is easily denied. Sympathetic press can look forward to being made Senators(ie Duffy or Wallin) or even Governor General. I was under the Code of Service Discipline and still am to some extent even now that I am out. He was not worth going to Edmonton for as no one would have given a shit. Cowards hear the word terrorist and all our rights and freedoms go out the window. They suck the first demagogue's dick who promises to protect them.